Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employers' Duty to Monitor Employees' Internet Activities
In a case with potential national implications, a New Jersey court recently held in a case of first impression that employers have a legal obligation to investigate an employee's activities when they know or have reason to know that the employee is using a workplace computer to access child pornography. Doe v. XYC Corporation, 382 NJ Super. 122 (App. Div. 2005). The court also held that an employer is required to report the employee's activities to the proper authorities and to take 'effective internal action' to stop the employee's activities. Based on the facts of the case, the court also ruled that 'no privacy interest of the employee stands in the way of this duty on the part of the employer.' XYC Corporation filed notice that it was petitioning the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the decision. However, the parties settled the matter, and XYC Corporation withdrew its petition.
This ruling may have far-reaching implications for employers because it imposes duties on them to: 1) ensure that their employees' illegal work conduct does not cause injury to third parties, and 2) report an employee's potentially illegal conduct to the proper authorities. The XYC Corporation case may be the beginning of a trend in which other courts adopt a similar analysis in situations involving serious public policy issues such as child pornography or child abuse. In fact, the California Supreme Court has held that three school districts were potentially liable to a 13-year-old girl who had been sexually molested by a former employee. See Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 1066 (1997). The former employers had unconditionally praised the former employee in their letters of recommendation, even though they knew of charges or complaints of his prior sexual misconduct with students. The case also highlights the risk that third parties can sue employers for the criminal acts of their employees. Although the ruling in the XYC Corporation case is limited to the context of child pornography, it may be expanded in the future to impose liability on employers for their employees' use of work computers for other criminal activities.
This article discusses the facts and ruling of the XYC Corporation case. It also provides employers with practical suggestions for complying with the obligations imposed by the case.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.